co2 vs. nitro

[ploser]

what is better?

[penguins_r_kewl]

It took me a while to compare and contrast them, and in about 0.004577 milliseconds, I found an answer...NITRO, der.

[Lokichi]

Oi.......... Co2 of course.....:rolleyes:

[penguins_r_kewl]

Originally posted by Lokichi
Oi.......... Co2 of course.....:rolleyes:

You didn't seriously vote that, did you?

:eyes:

[Spinach]

Nitro or HPA is better because you can play in quite cold weather without ur tank freezing and then its more consistent and cleaner but its fine for a begginer or intermediate.

[MunkyFuzz]

Nito just outweights C02 in advatages.



Oh yeah, next time this should be in the air systems forum. I think.

[ploser]

oh sorry your right i should have but is Co2 really that bad (iam just a noob)

[133+ Player]

Co2 isn't that bad lol. Gotta love how people take it all outta wack. If you have co2 with anti-siphon on an impulse, you'll get about a... +/- 10 max. With nitro you'll get about +/- 7. Its by no means an insane difference as long as you have a good reg.

[deadly killer]

that question was a no brainer of course nirtos better itz more consistant then co2 and lotz of other things too but the tanks cost more thats the only thing...

[firekow]

I'll vote for the only thing I can and have used. I don't care about how clean or whatever nitro may be, it doesn't help me if I can't use it. Also, when you compare the costs of tanks, there's a pretty significant difference.

[ploser]

thanks +133 player

[133+ Player]

:tup: Anytime

Keep in mind I did say anti-siphon. I don't want someone messing up their electro cuz they misread my post. To keep the validity of my post, its like a 7 buck upgrade, an anti-siphon tube that is.

[sIc]

Originally posted by firekow
I'll vote for the only thing I can and have used. I don't care about how clean or whatever nitro may be, it doesn't help me if I can't use it. Also, when you compare the costs of tanks, there's a pretty significant difference.

So in your opinion c02 is better than nitro?

[camoman5000]

Co2 is actually alright...if you have it set up right. Probably overall cheaper to have a good Co2 setup than nitro too, but, of course, if you have the money, and a place to get nitro filled, nitro is just overall cleaner and just better.

[IrishDevil]

I made the switch from using CO2 for years to HPA recently and I am going to find it hard to go back. It's benficial for me living in cold climes and all.

HPA is costly, no doubt. But think of it as an upgrade that you can put on any gun really.

[Firebladz]

The big advantages for Co2 is it's cheaper and easier to find...
And well thats about all that I can think of...

Firebladz.

[firekow]

Originally posted by sIc


So in your opinion c02 is better than nitro?

yeah, because as I said, it's the only thing I can get my hands on. it's cheap. paintball isn't cheap. CO2 is therefore my friend.

[Durandal]

Originally posted by Firebladz
The big advantages for Co2 is it's cheaper and easier to find...
And well thats about all that I can think of...

Firebladz.

Nitro is interchangeable with compressed air. So you can go to a scuba shop and fill a Nitro tank. Nitrogen as a gas is cheaper, its tanks are just really expensive.

Nitrogen pwns CO2 anyday.

[pb_fool]

Originally posted by 133+ Player
Co2 isn't that bad lol. Gotta love how people take it all outta wack. If you have co2 with anti-siphon on an impulse, you'll get about a... +/- 10 max. With nitro you'll get about +/- 7. Its by no means an insane difference as long as you have a good reg.

Actually if you play with your setup just a bit you can get +/- 2 at the chrono.

[Firebladz]

oh another advantage to Co2 is you get more shots per tank on average...

But overall and in the long run N2/HPA is superior to Co2...

Firebladz.

[chris818181]

i did a test wiht co2 and nitrogen shooting lIKE 450 FPS and the C02 shot WAYYYYY further it was crazyyyy nitrogen is overated and WORTHLESSSSSS get like 8 antisiphon tubes
thats what i did i put 3 in at my house and it wokrs well i better get it checked by a airsmith tho

[Alarick]

Here is a veiw of the CO2 V.S HPA argument from someone who is far more exprianced in paintball than i.
This was taken from the FAQ at www.docsmachine.com

"
I have been playing paintball since before the HPA days and remember always making adjustments to the gun to compensate for the temperment of Co2. Why do people even mess with it anymore?? I used to shoot my autococker on the stuff and when I switched to HPA it was a totally different marker!! Crono right up to the limit without any worries of shattering someones goggles or getting thrown out completely, not to mention the fire extinguisher effect of shooting Co2 on a cold day. So WHY??

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Regulator, expansion chamber, anti siphon tube etc have come a long ways or have been invented since then for paintball use. Take the autococker for example mine even. 98 autococker with akalmp full lp setup, dual palmers stabilizer (vertical and horizontal) running on anti siphon co2 20 oz tank. I play in the dead of winter when there is 2 feet of snow on the ground and the temp is about 25 degrees out. Gun shoots fine all day long consistently shooting an average of 285 fps. Thats why there is no reason for me to use nitro since co2 works fine for me.
Tim
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could run HPA. In fact I do, on the Angel, but I feed my cocker nuthin' but CO2 because it's cheaper, lighter, fills last longer and there are more places to get them.

The problems you mention with CO2 are very real, but also quite surmountable.

With just an anti-syphon and a regulator, most guns can run CO2 without any problems, provided they can be made to run at 600psi or lower. The fact is most can run quite a bit lower than that without too much fuss.

I am familiar with the attitude that HPA magically increases efficiency, consistancy, range, gas mileage and votes for Gore, I face it often when I go to chrono my 'cocker.. but it's just not so. Pressurized inert gas is what it is.

Folks see my gun, on which no expense was spared, and often ask why I run CO2. I tell them what I just told you, cost, weight and efficiency. Usually they just shake their heads, as if I am somehow sacrificing performance. Sometimes it chrono's super-consistent, sometimes not, but I am secure in the knowledge that it's not the lack of HPA.

-Curt

------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is certainly no argument that HPA makes things easier to tune, there less to worry about. Its cleaner than CO2 (in general) so there is less chance of debris getting caught in a seal and causing a leak.

But lets talk economy for a minute. When you say "up front it costs more" you aren't kidding. A decent screw-in system runs at least $140, and it's pretty easy to run it up to 2 or 3 hundred. But lets stick with what's reasonable. a 68cc screw-in system. That's about equivilant in number of shots to a 12oz CO2 tank.

Figure $250 for the HPA setup and $38 for the 12oz.

At your field it costs $4.50 to fill that HPA tank. At mine it costs $5 to fill a 12oz CO2. I'll assume it's about the same price at your field.

Lets figure 800 shots per fill, unless you have a Shocker in which case it's more like 80 shots

To make up the cost of your tank you are going to need to shoot 339,200 paintballs. Still think you have the better deal?

lets push the numbers to best-case. Assume you buy a 68CC screw-in from a one-eyed retarded crack-head for $150. This same ficticious person gouges for CO2 tanks to make up the difference and charges me $60,

Now you only need to shoot 144,000 paintballs to make up the difference in cost (that's a mere 72 cases)

Say the fill prices for CO2 go way up to $8 per 12oz. now we're talking something more reasonable ($150/$60 tank pricing)-- 20,571 paintballs. only 10 cases. But those prices are absurd.

Step up with an Armageddon 4500 system and suffice to say you could shoot paint until you're gun falls apart and still never make up the money from fills.

My point is don't be so quick to dismiss a "small" up-front cost. It's more than you'll ever make up in the lifetime of shooting your gun. Tinkers are not cantankerous (well, okay some aren't) we just run the numbers.

You say "expansion chabers, siphon tubes, remotes" the only piece of equipment from that list I mentioned was anti-syphon tube. A $25(installed) add-on that is invisible. With HPA you need a reg anyway. Personally I've never found an expantion chamber to be necessary, and remotes to be a pain-in-the-tank (also not necessary).

I've never heard of damage to a reg because of being cooled.. to the O-Rings perhaps but it requires a pretty hard freeze to kill them, and with an anti-syphon it's pretty difficult to get that.

If you want to run HPA then run it. Just don't expect mindless agreement that the latest chrome-flashy-LCD-regulator must be superior to plain-ol' CO2 because of how much it costs. It's not. CO2 requires a small bit of forethought and setup, granted, but it is still lighter, smaller, and I hope you understand my point about why (even in Seattle) it's cheaper to fill and maintain.

-Curt

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curt's hit the nail squarely once again.

If blowing 1,000 to 1,600 shots per game is not yet a requirement for you, then you can find 7, 9, 10, 12, 16 and 20-ounce CO2 tanks all day long for literally dirt-cheap. PBC's classifieds are full of people with piles of 9-ouncers they're selling for like $5 each. 20-ouncers without a shutoff-type valve regularly sell for $25 or so, used.

Personally, I have about a half-cord of various size tanks I haven't used in almost three years. Need any? (I'm not sellin' the 16s and 20s, so don't ask.)

As for costs, I go one better on Curt's numbers, above. I've used small home-shop size 20-lb bulk CO2 tanks for my fills for literally decades. I pay an outrageous $1.10/lb for the bulk-tank refill. In the big city of Anchorage, if you buy it in 50 or 100-lb tanks, I think it can be had for about $0.27/lb, not counting tank rental and other charges.

Using my 20-pounders, I can get somewhere around 12 to 16 fills, depending on the size of the tanks, how chilled they are, and other wastage factors. That's about a buck-and-a-quarter, roughly, a fill.

There's other stuff to think about, too. For example, why put a $150 screw-in system onto a $65 used Trracer pump? Shocker users use CO2 because A) the gun works just as well on it as it does on HPA, and B) A tank of whatever given size gets at least a third more shots per "fill" with CO2 as it does on air. (CO2 is stored as a liquid- a denser medium, providing more potential energy per given volume.)

Having said all that, one of the primary reasons for CO2's continued use (besides masses and masses of cheap, CO2-friendly blowbacks and pumps) is that nearly every town has a ready supplier of CO2. Welding shops carry it as a shielding gas, and soda bottlers or soda-fountain distributers use it to carbonate their drinks.

On the other hand, not every town has a SCUBA shop- probably not many in, say, Oklahoma City, or Sagebrush, Wyoming- to supply cheap HPAir. And the only other choice is then to rent relatively small 2,200 psi Nitrogen tanks, or the larger but FAR more expensive 6,000 psi N2 tanks, AND a $300 regulated fill station.

Or, you (or the field, store, local supplier) can buy a $2,500 compressor (and that's a small one) or a $1,500 booster AND the supply bottles.

For example, here in my podunk backwater, there was almost NO way to regularly supply HPA to my customers when I ran my field. Yes, I had a couple of SCUBA tanks, that I had to drive about 30 miles to have filled at $7 a pop, and I had that augmented occasionally with an expensive N2 tank. But in ALL cases, by the end of the day, the HPA-users were typically- if it was a good day- down to pulling 1,200 to 1,800-psi fills at best.

A $2,500 compressor was just a hair out of the price range of a field struggling to net maybe $8,000 a year.

Getting back to Curt's numbers, all a CO2 gun really needs is a properly-installed anti-siphon, and an angled or "dropped" bottomline/cradle/stock. A small expansion chamber can't hurt, but isn't vital.
Then, you just have to remember not to point the damned thing at the ground for 20 minutes between games.
Expansion chambers, too, can be found VERY regularly on various classifieds for anywhere from $5 to $25.

Tank- $35, anti-siphon- $10, dropped bottomline, $10/$20, used expansion chamber $15. (All ballpark figures.) That's all less than half what a cheap screw-in system runs.

Besides, I know for a FACT that CO2 is "blamed" on far more gun problems than it actually causes.
It's just a convenient scapegoat.

Doc."

[LAMANTEthePBguy]

Clicky (http://www.pbreview.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135936)

The main reason HPA is better is becasue the tank comes with a regulator on it. The actual gas itself doesnt really affect anything, its just harder to get gaseous co2. Co2 also has temperature issues. With the right stup, co2 can be just as good as HPA.

[133+ Player]

Originally posted by Alarick
Here is a veiw of the CO2 V.S HPA argument from someone who is far more exprianced in paintball than i.
This was taken from the FAQ at www.docsmachine.com

"
I have been playing paintball since before the HPA days and remember always making adjustments to the gun to compensate for the temperment of Co2. Why do people even mess with it anymore?? I used to shoot my autococker on the stuff and when I switched to HPA it was a totally different marker!! Crono right up to the limit without any worries of shattering someones goggles or getting thrown out completely, not to mention the fire extinguisher effect of shooting Co2 on a cold day. So WHY??

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Regulator, expansion chamber, anti siphon tube etc have come a long ways or have been invented since then for paintball use. Take the autococker for example mine even. 98 autococker with akalmp full lp setup, dual palmers stabilizer (vertical and horizontal) running on anti siphon co2 20 oz tank. I play in the dead of winter when there is 2 feet of snow on the ground and the temp is about 25 degrees out. Gun shoots fine all day long consistently shooting an average of 285 fps. Thats why there is no reason for me to use nitro since co2 works fine for me.
Tim
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could run HPA. In fact I do, on the Angel, but I feed my cocker nuthin' but CO2 because it's cheaper, lighter, fills last longer and there are more places to get them.

The problems you mention with CO2 are very real, but also quite surmountable.

With just an anti-syphon and a regulator, most guns can run CO2 without any problems, provided they can be made to run at 600psi or lower. The fact is most can run quite a bit lower than that without too much fuss.

I am familiar with the attitude that HPA magically increases efficiency, consistancy, range, gas mileage and votes for Gore, I face it often when I go to chrono my 'cocker.. but it's just not so. Pressurized inert gas is what it is.

Folks see my gun, on which no expense was spared, and often ask why I run CO2. I tell them what I just told you, cost, weight and efficiency. Usually they just shake their heads, as if I am somehow sacrificing performance. Sometimes it chrono's super-consistent, sometimes not, but I am secure in the knowledge that it's not the lack of HPA.

-Curt

------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is certainly no argument that HPA makes things easier to tune, there less to worry about. Its cleaner than CO2 (in general) so there is less chance of debris getting caught in a seal and causing a leak.

But lets talk economy for a minute. When you say "up front it costs more" you aren't kidding. A decent screw-in system runs at least $140, and it's pretty easy to run it up to 2 or 3 hundred. But lets stick with what's reasonable. a 68cc screw-in system. That's about equivilant in number of shots to a 12oz CO2 tank.

Figure $250 for the HPA setup and $38 for the 12oz.

At your field it costs $4.50 to fill that HPA tank. At mine it costs $5 to fill a 12oz CO2. I'll assume it's about the same price at your field.

Lets figure 800 shots per fill, unless you have a Shocker in which case it's more like 80 shots

To make up the cost of your tank you are going to need to shoot 339,200 paintballs. Still think you have the better deal?

lets push the numbers to best-case. Assume you buy a 68CC screw-in from a one-eyed retarded crack-head for $150. This same ficticious person gouges for CO2 tanks to make up the difference and charges me $60,

Now you only need to shoot 144,000 paintballs to make up the difference in cost (that's a mere 72 cases)

Say the fill prices for CO2 go way up to $8 per 12oz. now we're talking something more reasonable ($150/$60 tank pricing)-- 20,571 paintballs. only 10 cases. But those prices are absurd.

Step up with an Armageddon 4500 system and suffice to say you could shoot paint until you're gun falls apart and still never make up the money from fills.

My point is don't be so quick to dismiss a "small" up-front cost. It's more than you'll ever make up in the lifetime of shooting your gun. Tinkers are not cantankerous (well, okay some aren't) we just run the numbers.

You say "expansion chabers, siphon tubes, remotes" the only piece of equipment from that list I mentioned was anti-syphon tube. A $25(installed) add-on that is invisible. With HPA you need a reg anyway. Personally I've never found an expantion chamber to be necessary, and remotes to be a pain-in-the-tank (also not necessary).

I've never heard of damage to a reg because of being cooled.. to the O-Rings perhaps but it requires a pretty hard freeze to kill them, and with an anti-syphon it's pretty difficult to get that.

If you want to run HPA then run it. Just don't expect mindless agreement that the latest chrome-flashy-LCD-regulator must be superior to plain-ol' CO2 because of how much it costs. It's not. CO2 requires a small bit of forethought and setup, granted, but it is still lighter, smaller, and I hope you understand my point about why (even in Seattle) it's cheaper to fill and maintain.

-Curt

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curt's hit the nail squarely once again.

If blowing 1,000 to 1,600 shots per game is not yet a requirement for you, then you can find 7, 9, 10, 12, 16 and 20-ounce CO2 tanks all day long for literally dirt-cheap. PBC's classifieds are full of people with piles of 9-ouncers they're selling for like $5 each. 20-ouncers without a shutoff-type valve regularly sell for $25 or so, used.

Personally, I have about a half-cord of various size tanks I haven't used in almost three years. Need any? (I'm not sellin' the 16s and 20s, so don't ask.)

As for costs, I go one better on Curt's numbers, above. I've used small home-shop size 20-lb bulk CO2 tanks for my fills for literally decades. I pay an outrageous $1.10/lb for the bulk-tank refill. In the big city of Anchorage, if you buy it in 50 or 100-lb tanks, I think it can be had for about $0.27/lb, not counting tank rental and other charges.

Using my 20-pounders, I can get somewhere around 12 to 16 fills, depending on the size of the tanks, how chilled they are, and other wastage factors. That's about a buck-and-a-quarter, roughly, a fill.

There's other stuff to think about, too. For example, why put a $150 screw-in system onto a $65 used Trracer pump? Shocker users use CO2 because A) the gun works just as well on it as it does on HPA, and B) A tank of whatever given size gets at least a third more shots per "fill" with CO2 as it does on air. (CO2 is stored as a liquid- a denser medium, providing more potential energy per given volume.)

Having said all that, one of the primary reasons for CO2's continued use (besides masses and masses of cheap, CO2-friendly blowbacks and pumps) is that nearly every town has a ready supplier of CO2. Welding shops carry it as a shielding gas, and soda bottlers or soda-fountain distributers use it to carbonate their drinks.

On the other hand, not every town has a SCUBA shop- probably not many in, say, Oklahoma City, or Sagebrush, Wyoming- to supply cheap HPAir. And the only other choice is then to rent relatively small 2,200 psi Nitrogen tanks, or the larger but FAR more expensive 6,000 psi N2 tanks, AND a $300 regulated fill station.

Or, you (or the field, store, local supplier) can buy a $2,500 compressor (and that's a small one) or a $1,500 booster AND the supply bottles.

For example, here in my podunk backwater, there was almost NO way to regularly supply HPA to my customers when I ran my field. Yes, I had a couple of SCUBA tanks, that I had to drive about 30 miles to have filled at $7 a pop, and I had that augmented occasionally with an expensive N2 tank. But in ALL cases, by the end of the day, the HPA-users were typically- if it was a good day- down to pulling 1,200 to 1,800-psi fills at best.

A $2,500 compressor was just a hair out of the price range of a field struggling to net maybe $8,000 a year.

Getting back to Curt's numbers, all a CO2 gun really needs is a properly-installed anti-siphon, and an angled or "dropped" bottomline/cradle/stock. A small expansion chamber can't hurt, but isn't vital.
Then, you just have to remember not to point the damned thing at the ground for 20 minutes between games.
Expansion chambers, too, can be found VERY regularly on various classifieds for anywhere from $5 to $25.

Tank- $35, anti-siphon- $10, dropped bottomline, $10/$20, used expansion chamber $15. (All ballpark figures.) That's all less than half what a cheap screw-in system runs.

Besides, I know for a FACT that CO2 is "blamed" on far more gun problems than it actually causes.
It's just a convenient scapegoat.

Doc."

Longest Post Ever.

[E r y k]

im sure if price didnt matter... all you co2 lovers would use hpa in a heartbeat.

i was very biased towards co2 when i had it... but its totally different now

[ploser]

but money is a factor!